Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
CESTAT ruled that merely listing an inter-connected undertaking in Income Tax Form 3CD does not establish a "related person" relationship under Central Excise law. Without specific determination that the appellant and M/s Shree Vaishnav Ispat Private Limited were related under Section 4(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, they cannot be treated as related parties for valuation purposes. The Tribunal cited precedents establishing that inter-connected undertakings are not automatically related persons, and valuation should be determined under Rule 10 rather than Rules 8 & 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.
CESTAT ruled that merely listing an inter-connected undertaking in Income Tax Form 3CD does not establish a "related person" relationship under Central Excise law. Without specific determination that the appellant and M/s Shree Vaishnav Ispat Private Limited were related under Section 4(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, they cannot be treated as related parties for valuation purposes. The Tribunal cited precedents establishing that inter-connected undertakings are not automatically related persons, and valuation should be determined under Rule 10 rather than Rules 8 & 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
